Please comment on "config_registers ... bit_range: [x, y] " is 'x' included ? (possible bug):

[Pe3ucTop]

Hi, great work !
I looked for example of bit definition and get confused :

      - bit_range: [7, 0]
        name: RDPR
        description: Read Protection. 0xA5 for unprotected, otherwise read-protected(ignoring WRP)
        explaination:
          0xa5: Unprotected
          _: Protected

in compare to:

      - bit_range: [23, 21]
        name: SRAM_CODE_MODE
        description: SRAM Code Mode
        explaination:
          0b00: CODE-192KB + RAM-128KB
          0b01: CODE-224KB + RAM-96KB
          0b10: CODE-256KB + RAM-64KB
          0b11: CODE-228KB + RAM-32KB

So question: 'bit_range: [x , y]' is 'x' included in range ?
Is second part 3 bit or 2 bit ?
Which one is correct way?

[andelf]

Thanks, it's a typo in offset calculation.

[andelf]

It's an experiment in config register parsing. Currently, it uses RangeInclusive type to represent bit offsets.
I made a mistake in calculation.